Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]

Clause 5

Executive members and other staff

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 15, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, after ‘Majesty’, insert
‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’.—[Mr. Fallon]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill Olner: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 120, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
‘(b) employed to operate independently of the Board with scrutiny and oversight of the role provided by the Board.’.
No. 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A) No appointment shall be made under subsection (2) until it has been approved by the Commission established under section (Establishment of a Commission for Official Statistics).’.
No. 189, in clause 5, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A) Appointments made under subsection (2) shall be subject to review by the Commission established under section (Establishment of a Commission for Official Statistics) within one year of their having been made.
(2B) The Commission shall produce a report on any review carried out under subsection (2A) and shall lay it before each House of Parliament.’.
No. 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3A) The National Statistician shall have right of direct access to the Prime Minister on any matter involving dispute with a government department.’.
No. 151, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 121, in clause 8, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
‘(4) The Board shall have responsibility to monitor and assess the performance of the National Statistician against the assigned responsibilities.’.
No. 100, in clause 9, page 4, line 37, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 101, in clause 9, page 5, line 2, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 102, in clause 9, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 103, in clause 18, page 8, line 15, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 104, in clause 18, page 8, line 17, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 105, in clause 18, page 8, line 19, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 106, in clause 18, page 8, line 21, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 107, in clause 18, page 8, line 23, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 108, in clause 19, page 8, line 26, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 125, in clause 19, page 8, line 30, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 126, in clause 19, page 8, line 36, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 109, in clause 20, page 9, line 11, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 110, in clause 21, page 9, line 20, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 111, in clause 22, page 9, line 23, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 112, in clause 22, page 9, line 25, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 113, in clause 22, page 9, line 27, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 114, in clause 23, page 9, line 34, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 115, in clause 26, page 10, line 34, after ‘Board’ and insert ‘and the National Statistician’.
No. 116, in clause 26, page 10, line 35, after ‘Board’ and insert ‘and the National Statistician’.
No. 197, in clause 28, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
‘(d) ensuring that, where appropriate, official statistics provide evidence of local variations and service needs.’.
No. 97, in clause 28, page 12, line 17, at end insert—
‘(5) The National Statistician shall be the government’s chief advisor on statistics, including, inter alia, matters relating to the planning, production and quality of official statistics, and shall provide professional leadership to all persons within government who are engaged in statistical production and release.’.
No. 127, in clause 28, page 12, line 17, at end insert—
‘(5) The National Statistician shall be the government’s principal advisor on statistics and provide professional leadership to all persons engaged in statistical production and publication.’.
No. 80, in clause 29, page 12, line 19, leave out ‘Board’ and insert
‘executive office created under the provisions of subsection (5) below’.
No. 98, in clause 29, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
‘(2A) The National Statistician shall—
(a) coordinate, and promote coordination of, statistical production across government and the devolved administrations; and
(b) take steps to ensure consistency in the production of official statistics across the United Kingdom.’.
No. 29, in clause 29, page 12, line 27, at end insert—
‘(3A) The National Statistician shall have responsibility for promoting—
(a) the co-ordination of statistical planning and production across government departments; and
(b) the production of statistics that are as consistent as possible across the United Kingdom.’.
No. 139, in clause 29, page 12, line 28, leave out from ‘Board’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘shall monitor the National Statistician in the exercise of his functions in relation to official statistics, inlcuding the duty set out in subsection (2A) above.’.
No. 128, in clause 29, page 12, line 28, after ‘may’ insert ‘not’.
No. 129, in clause 29, page 12, line 29, leave out ‘not’.
No. 117, in clause 31, page 13, line 26, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 130, in clause 36, page 14, line 35, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 132, in clause 36, page 14, line 40, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 133, in clause 36, page 15, line 4, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 134, in clause 36, page 15, line 23, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 135, in clause 36, page 15, line 25, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 136, in clause 36, page 15, line 27, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 137, in clause 36, page 15, line 30, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
No. 138, in clause 36, page 15, line 31, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.
I also remind hon. Members that, because it is a rather large group of amendments, if they wish to press any amendment separately, they should indicate that during their speech.

John Healey: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Olner. I hope that hon. Members recognise that I like to be as positive as I can, so I shall pick up on a positive note and reflect on some of the arguments that were put to support amendments Nos. 98 and 29. I am grateful for the acknowledgement and the warm words of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. That is a tribute to the work that has been done to bring all the devolved Administrations into the new system. I pay tribute to those in the devolved Administrations who have taken the decision to be a part of what we are legislating for.
Probably everyone shares the aims of hon. Members who have tabled amendments in this group. Everyone will recognise that consistent, UK-wide statistics are beneficial and desirable. Such consistency allows statistics about devolved countries to be combined, it allows figures for the UK as a whole to be produced, and for situations in different Administrations to be compared.
However, it is important that we recognise that some divergence is to be expected because of the different political, legal and administrative situations of the four nations. Many of the differences existed prior to devolution.
On the wider point of planning and co-ordination, we have given the board the overall objective of promoting and safeguarding the quality, good practice and comprehensiveness of official statistics. It hasthe specific duty to monitor, and can report publicly on all of the issues to which I referred, as is set out in clauses 7 and 8. In so far as the board considers consistency to be good practice, it can promote it through the code, through its advice and guidance on standards, or as part of the methodologies for the production of statistics, a matter covered in clause 9. We envisage that the board’s statutory objectives of safeguarding comprehensiveness, and the coherence between different sets of official statistics—the Bill defines that as an aspect of quality—will be the key ways in which co-ordination across the system will be assured.
There are a number of ways in which the board can seek to deal with work programmes that it judges are not comprehensive, or lack co-ordination. The board can report its concerns to the relevant Ministers, make its views public, and report concerns to Parliament and the devolved legislatures in either its annual or a special report. Additionally, the board can produce statistics if it considers that there is a gap in statistical coverage to be addressed, and no other body will deliver the statistics to meet that need. However, it would not be helpful—it would be restrictive—to set out in legislation the specific mechanisms that the board will use to deliver on those duties. I hope that my explanation of the options that are available to the board to meet any such concerns will satisfy the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and her hon. Friends.

Alun Michael: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

John Healey: I was just about to speak to my right hon. Friend’s amendments, but I am very happy to give way to him, as always.

Alun Michael: The Financial Secretary has set out good reasons for not constraining the work of the board. Does he agree that the direction should be towards the quality, independence, and objectivity of statistics, but also that those statistics should be collected in a useful way, and inform public discussion? That is not a constraint on the board; it is a basic requirement.

John Healey: I would go further than my right hon. Friend and say that it is a basic characteristic and purpose of statistics. I am sure that the board will reflect that in its work.
My hon. Friend’s amendment No. 197 would require the National Statistician as the board’s principal adviser to work to ensure that, where appropriate, official statistics provide evidence of local variations and service needs. As we discussed in an earlier sitting, I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. I understand his argument about the need for local statistics to aid local and regional policy making. That is important. He said earlier that he was looking for reassurance through this amendment, and I hope that what I have to say satisfies him.
I expect that, in considering the comprehensiveness and quality of official statistics, the board and the National Statistician, when acting on the board’s behalf, will consider their use in local policy making and use them to help understand local variations and needs. However, for reasons that we have already discussed, it would not be helpful to focus in legislation on just some of these statistical uses, even particularly important ones, given the ever-increasing and rapidly changing uses to which statistics are put. As we have discussed, and as the Committee has accepted, we could never hope to be exhaustive in that area in primary legislation.
Finally, I turn to amendment No. 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I am not certain about her point, having read the amendment and listened to her remarks. Let me try to be clear and, I hope, helpful and confirm our intention that the national statistician is to be the chief executive. The board as an organisation needs a chief executive who is accountable to the governing body for the effective, efficient operation of the whole department and who will be the board’s accounting officer. However, the person need not be involved operationally in every aspect of the body’s activities to discharge that responsibility—and the Bill ensures that they are not. It is important that the Bill establishes that, where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest, there is adequate separation of the operational activity. That separation is set out in the Bill, which establishes that the National Statistician cannot be involved in the activity of assessment, which will be operationally independent of the National Statistician’s executive office, where we expect that statistical production will take place.
The hon. Lady queried whether the National Statistician could be responsible, as chief executive, for part of the statistics board from which he or she was to maintain the separation. This is one area in which we are not breaking new ground. It may help the hon. Lady and the Committee for me to mention that, quite often, a body is authorised by Parliament to undertake a dual role. One only needs to think of a local authority—a number of Committee members have a distinguished track record in local authorities—which is empowered to promote, for example, development within its boundary and, at the same time, grant planning permission. When that happens, the local authority must structure itself to perform both functions as best it can, bearing in mind its overriding duty to act fairly, impartially and without bias. In such circumstances, a chief executive of a local authority would distance himself from planning, but would still be capable of ensuring the overall efficiency or governance of the body.
I do not wish to try the Committee’s patience. I hope that, in my response to a wide-ranging debate and serious, important amendments, I have set out the principles on which we are trying to establish the board and structure its operations in statute, where appropriate. I hope that I have given some indication, with respect to important matters, of what our expectation may be in practice. I hope that I have also explained that, in setting up an independent board with the capacity to draw up a code independent of Government that the board enforces and reports on, we do not bind too closely the judgments that the board needs to take. I hope that I have dealt with some ofthe specific points in the amendments and given the explanation and reassurance required. I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks will not press amendment No. 15 and, that other hon. Members will not seek to move their amendments when we reach the relevant place in the Bill. I make it clear to the Committee that I cannot accept those amendments and if they press them, I will ask my hon. Friends to vote against them.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for his lengthy response to the many amendments of significance that have been tabled. One of the most technically challenging parts of the debate is getting to grips with exactly who does what and who accounts for whom. As we have heard today, there is much confusion among those who are following the passage of the Bill about how the structures will work. I hope that this discussion has provided enlightenment and cleared up some of those confusions. I fear that some confusion remains, but I certainly hope that we have made progress. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for his comments.
I particularly welcomed his re-emphasis of the importance of access to the Prime Minister for the National Statistician. That is of key importance and it would be welcome to have it in the Bill. If not, it is at least welcome that the Financial Secretary has today confirmed that the National Statistician will have access and that it is an important part of the way in which the Government envisage the framework for Government statistics operating. Referring in the Bill to access to the Prime Minister would send a strong signal that would enhance the credibility of the National Statistician. As a number of hon. Members have made plain today, the political authority, standing and status of the National Statistician is crucial to ensuring a successful outcome for this reform. That is why I am sorry that the Financial Secretary is not disposed to accept the amendments that refer to the pivotal leadership role that the Opposition hope that the National Statistician will play.
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for his recognition of the importance of co-ordination of the statistical system. That was particularly well-emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. There are a number of concerns that have not yet been answered and perhaps we can return to those on Report. It is particularly worth highlighting the point made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne when she referred to the evidence given to the Treasury Committee by Dr. Ivan Fellegi about the functions of the National Statistician. The weakness he saw in the consultation paper on which he was commenting has, I fear, not yet been addressed by the Bill. That issue would have been addressed by a number of the amendments. It is a matter of regret that the Financial Secretary does not feel able to send a visible signal regarding the importance of planning, co-ordination and leadership by inserting the amendments into the Bill.
I would be concerned if we were to go down the road advocated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which would be to roll back on the functions and responsibilities—

Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is not with us, I should point out that he did state more than once that he was not advocating that particular approach; he was pointing out to the Opposition that there was a choice between two ways of approaching things. My hon. Friend is often quite clear in what he says and should not be misinterpreted.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have said that I would not support the option discussed following the intervention made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He did say that he felt that the additional responsibilities in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me and by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne could make the role of National Statistician so onerous and difficult that it would become impossible to fulfil. I do not agree for a number of reasons. Many of those functions are currently carried out by the National Statistician, and the responsibilities are entirely within the remit of people holding similar posts in other parts of the world. A useful insight into international comparisons can be found in the Treasury Committee report that described the functions in the Canadian chief statistician’s remit. They are an excellent model and are entirely within the scope of the Opposition amendments.
I return to the supervisory and scrutiny issues. They are also matters of importance to which the Committee might be disposed to return on Report. It was a matter of concern and anxiety that the Minister was so clear that the board should not have a regulatory function and would not be a regulator in the sense in which that term is normally understood. Instead, the board will have what he described as a softer audit-type function. 
That founds some of my fears about the Bill, a theme to which I shall return when we discuss the amendments dealing with scope. There is a key difference between the two Front Benches. The Conservatives feel that the legislation should allow the board to scrutinise and regulate the statistical system and believe that it is inadequate to do so at the moment. That is why we will seek to strengthen the powers available to the board to enforce the code. I remain concerned that merging the Statistics Commission with the Office for National Statistics, which is effectively what will happen, would remove an important safeguard.
In many respects, as I have acknowledged on the Floor of the House as well as this morning, the Bill is a step forward and in the right direction. The Minister deserves credit for taking those steps, but losing an independent scrutiny body and merging it with an executive body represents a step back. He was confident that the board’s executive function would not prevent it from criticising the ONS and its decisions. Again, we must consider perception. As I pointed out in an intervention, the problem does not arise where a criticism is made. A more difficult situation will be one in which the board decides that the ONS has got it right. The credibility of the board’s judgment will be undermined to a degree. It will not be seen as disinterested, because it will have been ultimately responsible for the decision in the first place.
I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 151 and 97, as they raise important issues on which it would be useful to divide. I am grateful for the Chairman’s patience in listening to my further thoughts.

Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for his closing remarks. The clarity of his important response will be welcomed by everybody concerned with policy development and delivery locally and, indeed, very locally. His words will also be welcomed by those engaged in local partnership work, where cross-cutting issues and the relationship between different elements of data are crucial, particularly in such things as local regeneration work.
I accept entirely the Financial Secretary’s view that it is good to keep the words in the Bill as simple as possible. It is also true that trying to underline something by making the wording specific can, by implication, make other things less important or exclude them. For that reason, I do not wish to press my amendment to a Division. With the Financial Secretary’s word on the record, it will be impossible for the National Statistician or the board to overlook the need to design the work with official statistics so that it provides evidence of local variations and service needs. That will be greatly welcomed everywhere.

Julia Goldsworthy: I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Olner.
I would like to thank the Financial Secretary for his helpful explanation, which has not only provided clarity and shed light on the issues raised in Committee, but will have helped the statistical community, particularly in relation to the appointment of the National Statistician and the access that the National Statistician may have to the Prime Minister. I am still disappointed by the lack of acceptance that the leadership status of the National Statistician may need to change. The Financial Secretary has said, understandably, that not all the points can be included in the Bill, as we will have to wait and see how things pan out when the board is up and running. Until that happens, concerns, which may need to be raised again on Report, will remain.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has suggested that a clear mission statement should be provided, whether as part of the Bill or separately. A statement of the functions of the board and the chief executive might go some way to providing greater clarification of how those roles interact. However, we will not press our amendments.

David Gauke: Comprehensive though the Financial Secretary’s remarks were, they did not specifically address the points raised by amendments Nos. 188 and 189. No doubt he considers that he addressed those points when he spoke to amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which relate to the appointment of non-executive members of the Statistics Commission. I assume that he has not had a change of heart and that he will not take this tremendous opportunity to put his name in history with a great constitutional legacy.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me,but his amendments relate to the proposal for a commission, the merits and demerits of which we fully discussed earlier, when the Committee chose not to give that proposal its backing.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. I was hoping that there might be some indication of an alternative route, whereby Parliament could scrutinise the appointments.
I would be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Olner, as to whether it is possible to move the amendments, given that they relate to a commission that would be set up under new clause 2. I would do so, if it were possible.

Bill Olner: I have been advised that the hon. Gentleman can vote on the commission at a later time.

David Gauke: I am grateful, Mr. Olner. If I have the opportunity to move my amendments at the appropriate time, I will do so.

Michael Fallon: I sense that the Committee wants to come to a decision on this large group of amendments, about which we have had a wide-ranging debate. Sadly, Mr. Olner, you missed the description of the accounting and auditing years ofmy hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. He has described himself as a “process man”, which I think falls into the category of too much information.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and it has been most revealing. The Financial Secretary started by saying that the Bill is part of the great new settlement and that it will devolve authority previously exercised by Ministers to the National Statistician and the statistics board. We fully understand why he has gone for the option of a single board, but, as we heard earlier, the flaw remains. It is not so much the distinction between the production of statistics and scrutiny, but that in our view those are not the sole functions of the new arrangement.
There is an S-word that does not appear in the Bill, and it never seems to escape the lips of the Financial Secretary. That word is “supervisory”. We do not see that word in the Bill, and the Financial Secretary is careful in his answers not to describe the new board as supervisory. He has used the word once in the context of Parliament. He wants the supervision of the system to rest with Parliament, which is a noble ambition, although we have no idea how it will work, because those arrangements are not for the Financial Secretary to propose.
We have a problem, because when the Financial Secretary was pressed on the matter, he had to concede that what he is setting up—he used these words—is not a regulator. He said that it is something softer than a regulator. I am not quite sure what that could be, but he said that it would set standards, make assessments and audit whether statistics had achieved those standards. At one stage, he described the work as technical—he said that the questions are technical and that they should be left to a body that is softer than a regulator. That is not where the Financial Secretary started. He started by saying that he was going to devolve authority, in which case the authority that he exercises now would be devolved to the National Statistician and the standards board. However, when we come to the detail, we end up hearing that the standards board is not a regulator, but a body involved in assessing rather technical questions. If we are not genuinely devolving authority, then we are not enhancing confidence in official statistics.
I turn to the three amendments that stand in my name and to the Financial Secretary’s answers on them—as you have said, Mr. Olner, it is for others to determine whether to press their amendments to Divisions at a later stage. I shall begin with themost important amendment, which is amendmentNo. 29. I did not attempt to write into the Bill a general duty of supervision—I could have done so, and itcould be done later. I confined my amendments to giving the board the duty of co-ordinating across Whitehall and ensuring consistency between Departments and between Departments and the devolved Administration.
I cannot see how even a softer form of regulator would not find it useful to have a specific duty to co-ordinate and to ensure consistency. I shall give the Financial Secretary another opportunity to explain why those duties should not be added. His initial answer was that the board will have the power to advocate and promote consistency. He said that if it does not find consistency, it will have the power to report to Ministers. I thought that we were trying to get away from that, but he said that it will report to Ministers or to Parliament. Finally, he said that if there is no consistency, the board can commission its own statistics to ensure that they are consistent.
It is not enough to promote, to advocate andto report. In my view, the board must have the power to enforce, which is why I tabled amendment No. 29 to clause 29. When we reach that clause, I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote formally on that amendment, as well as on some of the other amendments in the group.
Amendment No. 16 concerns the National Statistician’s right of access to the Prime Minister of the day. The Financial Secretary gave us some comfort by assuring us that under the existing framework the National Statistician has access, but it is not the direct access that my amendment would require—it is access through the head of the home civil service. I well remember that this precise point was explored when the framework was before the Treasury Committee four or five years ago.
I remain puzzled as to why the access has to be indirect, because I thought that the whole point of introducing these new arrangements was that we were getting away from Whitehall and that the National Statistician would be an independent officer of state who would no longer have to report back through the head of the civil service, the Cabinet Secretary or whoever. I thought that if there was a dispute with a particularly recalcitrant Department or Secretary of State—as Lord Moser told the Treasury Sub-Committee last summer that there was in his time—the National Statistician would have direct power to go to the Prime Minister. It is worth including the particular words of my amendment in the Bill.
 Finally, I turn to amendment No. 15, which I moved earlier. I must again thank the Financial Secretary, because he has confirmed, importantly and usefully, that this appointment will be made by the Prime Minister. He then spoiled things in two respects. First, he compared the new National Statistician to the chief medical officer or the chief scientific adviser. They are important offices, but they are both creatures of Government; those people are advisers to the Government. I had hoped that the whole point of setting up the new post of National Statistician in statute was that its holder would not simply be an adviser to or a creature of Government—I hoped that they would also represent the public interest in statistics.

John Healey: Under the framework that we seek to create with this Bill, the National Statistician emphatically will not be a creature of Government. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the record of this morning’s discussions, when it is published, he will see that my point was that we are breaking new ground. What we are looking at is unprecedented, as we are creating a new system, so there are no models for us to follow either internationally or domestically. The closest comparator might be the chief medical officer or the chief scientific adviser, but neither are truly comparable to the National Statistician. I hope that he will accept that, and if he checks the record, he will see that that is precisely my argument.

Michael Fallon: I am happy to accept that, and I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for clarifying it. The problem is that there is no exact parallel—I think that this is what he is telling the Committee—to the way in which he perceives the post of National Statistician. Yet, my point still holds. The National Statistician is to be not an officer of Government but, as I hope the Financial Secretary intends, an officer of the state. That is why it would be useful, given that he has helpfully conceded that the appointment will be made by the Prime Minister, to write that into the statute, and I see no objection to doing so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Bill Olner: The Ayes are 7, the Noes 8.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. Are the Noes 9 or 8?

Bill Olner: I am sorry: the Noes are 9.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 188, in clause 5, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A) No appointment shall be made under subsection (2) until it has been approved by the Commission established under section (Establishment of a Commission for Official Statistics).’.—[Mr. Gauke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in clause 5, page 3,line 19, at end insert—
‘(3A) The National Statistician shall have right of direct access to the Prime Minister on any matter involving dispute with a government department.’.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Theresa Villiers: As we have had a useful and extensive debate on matters relating to clause 5, I have just a very short point to raise, on which I should be grateful for the Financial Secretary’s thoughts. Subsection (6) states:
“The board may only appoint persons under subsection (4) with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and terms and conditions of employment.”
As my hon. Friends will confirm, I am always concerned to ensure good value for money for the taxpayer and sensible and efficient use of taxpayers’ money, but I wonder in this case whether it is necessary for the Minister for the Civil Service to be involved in determining staff numbers. Obviously, there have to be budgetary constraints, and those will be set in the way that is set out later in the Bill, but it seems to me that, within the constraints of the resources allocated to it, there is an argument for letting the board take the decisions as to the numbers of staff whom it employs.

Michael Fallon: It will be useful if we just pause for a moment to consider clause 5 in a little more detail. Naturally, we have concentrated on the position of the board and the National Statistician. As my hon. Friend has said, however, the clause deals with the position of other staff, and those who currently work for the ONS are entitled to a little more explanation of their future position. On Tuesday the Financial Secretary claimed some credit for his work with the ONS. He said:
“I have played an active role, which has had a beneficial impact on the ONS”.——[Official Report, Statistics and Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007;c. 57.]
At the very moment on Tuesday when he was making that claim, the announcement was made that some 600 jobs were to go from London, to be movedto Newport. The Public and Commercial Services Union said that it feared “up to 200 compulsory redundancies”. A PCS spokesman added that staff were “livid” at the proposal and went on to say:
“These plans are unnecessary, ill thought out and will undermine the quality of the statistics that the government base new initiatives and policies on.”
So the Financial Secretary should have the opportunity to provide some reassurance. I say that as someone who has constituents who work at the ONS who are now completely unsure whether they will be among the 100 to remain in London, the 600 who will be moved to Newport, or the 200 who will be fired as a result of the proposal.
I have three specific questions for the Financial Secretary. First, are there going to be compulsory redundancies as part of the relocation? Secondly, will the board, from the moment when the Act is passed, be subject to the same manpower reduction targets that are being applied elsewhere in Whitehall? Thirdly, what will happen to those who currently commute to the Pimlico headquarters from constituencies like mine in Kent? Will they be offered assistance with relocation to Newport, which is some distance away, and what help will be made available to them? Will they have the choice as to whether they go or stay?

Alun Michael: Some years ago I attended an engagement and had to confess to not knowing a lot about the geography of Kent. Clearly, however, the hon. Gentleman does not know a lot about the opportunities and the quality of life in the area of Newport and south Cardiff. Does he not realise the advantages that are being offered to his constituents?

Michael Fallon: I am ready to be persuaded of the advantages of relocating to Newport vis-Ã -vis Kent, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that for anybody currently based in London or the south-east of England, the proposal is potentially a huge upheaval and a large distance by which to uproot oneself suddenly, however much we support relocation to the regions.

Mark Hoban: One of the other ONS offices is based in my constituency, at Titchfield. That was also at one stage subject to proposals for relocation to Newport. My own constituents expressed similar concerns to those being expressed by my hon. Friend today about the problems of relocation, ONS management, and the diktats to which it is subject as part of the Treasury. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s constituents and with the views that they are expressing.

Michael Fallon: We are already hearing the interest of the various constituencies in the proposal.
This is not simply part of the Government’s relocation drive. It is the Financial Secretary who has decided to reclassify ONS staff as being within the employment of the statistics board. So I hope that when he responds, he will offer some reassurance as to whether compulsory redundancies are part of his plan, whether the board will still be subject to overall reductions in manpower targets, and whether assistance will be made available to those who will compulsorily have to move to Newport as opposed to those who choose to do so.

David Gauke: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary some specific questions about clause 5(6), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred earlier. It reads:
“The Board may only appoint persons under subsection (4)”—
that excludes the National Statistician and head of assessment—
“with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and terms and conditions of employment.”
As I read that, theoretically, the Minister for the Civil Service could refuse the statistics board any employees other than the National Statistician and the head of assessment. The difficulty is that under clause 3(6), the executive members of the statistics board are to consist of the National Statistician and
“two other employees of the Board”.
There seems to be a contradiction in the drafting. On the one hand, it states that the board must have three employees, and on the other that any more than two requires permission from the Minister for the Civil Service, who presumably is entitled to refuse it—a pedantic point, I accept, but none the less there seems to be a failure in the drafting.
Furthermore, what sort of information is it envisaged that the board will provide to the Minister for the Civil Service when appointing employees? Given that he has powers over the terms and numbers of such appointments, I would be grateful for reassurance that there is not a clearance procedure whereby the names of proposed appointees will be provided to him. That would give the appearance of a veto over the employment of individuals. I would be  grateful also for greater clarification on how much flexibility the board will have in determining the pay and conditions of its employees. Clause 5(7) reads:
“Service as an employee of the Board is service in the civil service of the State.”
What impact will civil service pay grades have on executive employees?
On the approval process, are there guidelines for the Minister for the Civil Service when granting consent to the employment of additional staff? Could he delay granting that consent for a considerable period? I assume that there are guidelines and would be grateful for clarification.
Finally, on Tuesday, when we debated the residual body, we should perhaps have drawn attention to clause 5. However, given that the Treasury, not the Minister for the Civil Service, has residual authority over the statistics board, what form of Treasury consultation or representation is envisaged? How will the two interact in deciding these issues?

John Healey: I am glad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet takes her role as shadow Chief Secretary seriously.
I can assure the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, who is concerned about some of the same points as the hon. Lady, that provisions in the Bill do not mean that individual appointments will have to be brought before the Minister for the Civil Service as a matter of course, principally because that is in fact the Prime Minister. The provisions in the Bill essentially reflect the fact that, because the statistics board will be set up as a non-departmental body, on the basis that we explained previously, we see the board’s employees as continuing to be civil servants. That move has been generally welcomed by those employed by the ONS, as well as by the principal unions that represent staff in the organisation.
The principal unions representing staff might also have views on other matters that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks raised. Before I address those, however, I should say that, on the procedural points that he and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet raised, I intend to write to the Committee to set out in detail what the broad implications of the provisions in the Bill are.

David Gauke: I am grateful for the Financial Secretary’s comments. I do not know whether he intended to return to the fact that clause 3 specifies three employees, whereas clause 5 leaves open the possibility of a veto for more than two, so perhaps he would address that before he moves on.

John Healey: I was proposing to return to that point in the letter that I shall send to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks picked up on work that is being undertaken in the ONS. That work is part of what was originally the Lyons review, as he will know, which set out, in a way that the Government accept, the general case for seeking to relocate a substantial proportion of central civil service jobs out into the regions and countries of the United Kingdom. The options that the National Statistician and the ONS are considering reaffirm that Newport will in future be the corporate headquarters, first of the ONS and then of the statistics board. That is a matter that is as welcome to certain Members of the House as it might be unwelcome to others.
 In general terms, the Government have accepted the strong arguments put forward in the Lyons review and we are pursuing that with vigour. In the view of the National Statistician, there is a good business case for the sort of moves that she is proposing to staff and seeking to discuss with them, not least—but not only—because of a clear financial argument, when one considers that the cost of accommodation in central London is five times higher than in Newport.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks put three questions to me. Compulsory redundancies, relocation assistance or any other provision that would rightly be put in place for staff who were affected are properly matters that will be negotiated between the ONS managers and the representative unions that are recognised within the organisation.
On the third point, about manpower targets, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect that to form part of the consideration that will be given to the special arrangements and the special funding settlement, which will be made as a provision for the board. That will not be part of the normal comprehensive spending review process, but a separate settlement for five years, with any subsequent increases or changes set out in a formula. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question. I hope that he will accept that I cannot give an answer to it, although I can explain precisely how the matter will be dealt with as we move towards setting up the statistics board under the terms of the Bill, this House permitting.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful for that clarification, especially on the last two points. On the first point about whether there will be compulsory redundancies, I think that the Minister’s position is that that is a matter for the management of the ONS and of the new board. Presumably that means that compulsory redundancies are not ruled out and that the managers of the new board, as of the ONS, will be allowed if they need to to apply for compulsory redundancies for staff who are not prepared to move. Is that the position?

John Healey: The statistics board will be a non-ministerial Government Department and will have employment responsibilities as other Departments do. The contracts, the terms and the way in which it deals with staff will be accordingly consistent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Official Statistics

Amendment proposed: No. 151, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National Statistician’.—[Mrs. Villiers.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: We could discuss many issues in the context of clause 6, a number of which will come up in the more detailed debate on the later sections. I want to ask a couple of questions of detail in connection with the clause and how it will operate in practice. I want to start with clause 6(2), which talks about an order that will be brought forward to specify
“statistics produced or to be produced by a particular person or description of a person.”
Those are statistics produced by non-governmental Departments and other Crown bodies that do not fall within the definitions set out in sub-paragraphs (i) to (vi) of clause 6(1)(a). Subsection (3) states:
“Before making an order under subsection (1)(b) an authority referred to in that provision must consult the Board.”
It must consult the statistics board, but it is not clear what the board is to be consulted on and what opinion it is to offer on any statistics that might be put forward in the order under subsection (2). Clause 12, which we will debate later, contains a process of assessment when an official statistic is nominated to become a national statistic. I assume that the procedure envisaged under subsection (3) will be softer than the formal assessment for inclusion as a national statistic. It is not entirely clear whether that is the case or to what extent a statistic specified by order should comply with the methodology outlined in clause 9. If the board is to be able to exercise its functions appropriately it would be helpful if the Minister could give some guidance on that point.
I assume that the board will be able to produce the list referred to in subsection (4) because of the order-making power in subsection (1)(b). I also assume that there is no comparable existing list of official statistics that the Committee and others could scrutinise. The definition of official statistics in subsection (1) is so broad that it could encompass virtually anything numerical that the Government might use, but I am not sure whether it will.
In subsection (5), the term “Welsh ministerial authority” is defined as encompassing three elements: the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister and the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government. I am not as familiar as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth or other members from Welsh constituencies with the mechanisms of government in Wales. Why is that provision in place for Wales but not for the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Northern Ireland?

David Gauke: I wish to ask some questions on the same matter as those asked by my hon. Friend: statistics becoming official statistics by order. First, there is a requirement that the appropriate Minister or authority consult the board, but as far as I can see there is no formal ability for the board to initiate that process. I assume that it will be able to put to a Minister informally any points that it wishes to make, but I would be grateful for confirmation of that.
Secondly, although a procedure for a statistic becoming an official statistic is set out in the clause, there is none for a statistic ceasing to be official. That might happen as a matter of course, presumably by order. I assume that it is of no significance that that is not specified, but I would again be grateful for clarification.
Finally, we welcome the inclusion in subsection (4) of the requirement for the board to produce a list of official statistics, because that is a matter for the board rather than the Minister. I suggest that when the annual list is produced, the board should highlight new official statistics and identify those that have ceased to be official statistics for any reason. One can imagine circumstances in which there might be controversy because a particular statistic was dropped. It might cause a political debate—this is a hypothetical case, I do not wish to make accusations. It would be useful for possible public debates if there were a comprehensive list each year of statistics that had ceased to be available as official statistics.

John Healey: The questions posed by the hon. Members for Fareham and for South West Hertfordshire are useful and important in helping the Committee and those who are following our proceedings to flesh out new territory. There is no existing definition or list of official statistics as there is for national statistics.
Our approach in the Bill requires us to come up with some way of defining official statistics because of the broad scope of the board’s responsibilities set out in clause 7, which are to promote and safeguard
“the quality...good practice...and...comprehensiveness of all official statistics.”
Given that responsibility and duty, we have to draw up a definition so that the scope can be set. That is the purpose of clause 6, which is about the definition and specification of official statistics.
The hon. Member for Fareham says that it is not clear what the board will be consulted on. That will depend on what is proposed for inclusion in the order. In a moment, I shall explain why the provision is there and the sort of things that an order may cover. Specifically, as part of the consultation, the board might be asked to comment on whatever is proposed in the order.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire rightly observed that the board has no power of initiation in that respect. However, as we have discussed, there is in the Bill not just an important power but a duty to monitor, to comment, to report and to publish such views on the broad aspects of the quality, good practice and comprehensiveness of official statistics. As I have said, I expect the board to take a close interest in those things. I would not expect it to hold back if it believed that there were gaps in the system. Clause 6 gives us the capacity to widen the scope for official statistics, if that is deemed necessary in future.
I turn to the question of whether statistics become new official statistics or cease to become official statistics. Given that official statistics define the scope of the board’s responsibilities, we would all expect the board to report on any changes to the boundaries and the scope of official statistics as part of its regular reporting functions.
Subsection (1)(a) is designed to ensure that, at the commencement of the Bill’s enactment, certain types of statistics will automatically be designated as official by reference to their producer. All statistics produced by the board, by Government Departments, including executive agencies, by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or by any other person acting on behalf of the Crown will be official statistics.
Subsection (1)(b) provides flexibility so that the scope of official statistics can be extended. In such circumstances, a Minister of the Crown, a Scottish Minister, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Department can specify official statistics by order. I have made sure that any order would be subject to affirmative resolution, so this House will get a further opportunity to debate and approve or decline to approve such proposals. Let me be clear. If the Minister was in the UK central Government, the order would pass through this Parliament; the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly would have their own ways of dealing with the issue.
The order can add to the coverage of official statistics beyond those covered in subsection (1)(a). It might add all the statistics of a specified body, a limited number of that body’s statistics or a specified statistical series. I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham can see that the answer to his question will depend on those circumstances.

Julia Goldsworthy: Would that be in relation to the need for affirmative action to collect information in order to produce those statistics, or purely for the publication of the information that has been collected?

John Healey: No. The importance of designation as official statistics is that it will bring such data within the scope of the duties and responsibilities of the statistics board, as specified in the Bill. An example might help the Committee.
We struggle, for instance, with the Higher Education Statistics Agency. It clearly produces important data, some of which are already classified as national statistics, but it does not fit, in terms of its constitution, into any of the categories set out in subsection (1)(a). Nevertheless, we are clear that its outputs and, indeed, those of the information centre for health and social care—which does not fit within the definition of bodies in subsection (1)(a) but certainly produces data, including national statistics, that we would want to fall within the scope of the new regime—we would want to be within the remit of the statistics board. Therefore, we would expect that the Ministers responsible would add the statistics from those two bodies to the scope of the official statistics, and we would expect them to use the necessary powers under this clause to do so. In seeking to widen the scope of the official statistics, the relevant Minister must consult the board. This will be an area on which the board will want to take a view and comment, including publicly.

David Gauke: What the Financial Secretary is saying is extremely helpful. If an autonomous body were producing statistics and an order were made under this clause that those statistics became official statistics, presumably there would be no ability in the Bill to ensure that that body continued to produce such statistics—it would have the flexibility to decide, say, to cease to produce those statistics even though an order had been made classifying its statistics as official statistics.

John Healey: We have previously had a long discussion about the nature of the function of the production of statistics. The ONS will become the responsibility of the board, and the board will play a part in deciding whether the ONS should continue to produce statistics. I have argued that clearly, and the Bill is framed in a way that recognises that as an appropriate executive function. Ultimately, the activities and resources that are deployed and undertaken within a Department should be the responsibility of the Minister who leads that Department. That is for the decision of the Minister responsible, but if official statistics are affected, the board might well want to comment and to publish its views on the matter.

David Gauke: I apologise. I probably did not make myself clear enough. I was thinking of circumstances in which statistics are produced not by the statistics board with its ONS hat on, nor by a Department, but by some third party under clause 6(1)(b). That third party might then decide of its own volition no longer to produce certain statistics, notwithstanding that those statistics had been classified by an order under the clause as official statistics. I do not propose a solution, but I would be grateful to know whether there is anything that the statistics board or the Government would do in such circumstances, however unlikely.

John Healey: The likely situation is that autonomous bodies would make such decisions for themselves. Clearly, if that affected the availability, quality, good practice or the comprehensiveness of official statistics, the board would want to look at that and might want to comment and to do so publicly. The statutory enforcement of transparency in this process, which the Bill proposes, would allow a sensible view and a debate. The decision would rest with those running the responsible body.
Finally, I was asked why subsection (5) refers only to Welsh Ministers and institutions. The subsection reflects the fact that every devolved Administration has separate governance arrangements and, in some cases, legislation. Having consulted the Administrations to secure the fullest possible list of bodies producing official statistics, the specification for the particular arrangements in Wales is necessary in a way that it is not for Scotland and Northern Ireland. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will allow clause 6 to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Objective

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I have a straightforward question for the Minister about whether the numbering in clause 7(1) is correct. The clause sets out the objective of the board:
“In the exercise of its functions under sections 8 to 19 the Board is to have the objective of reporting and safeguarding”
what are then referred to specifically as “official statistics”. However, when I look at clauses 8 to 19, clauses 8 and 9 apply to official statistics, as does clause 11 on pre-release access, but clauses 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 refer specifically to “national statistics”, not “official statistics”.
I am concerned that someone reading clause 7 casually might assume that the reference applied to national statistics and was not limited to official statistics. I wonder whether the drafting should have been
“sections 8, 9, 10 and 12”
instead of “sections 8 to 19”.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am probably a lone heretic on the Committee in that I am not sure that I buy the fundamental premise of the Bill, which is that statistics will automatically be more trusted if they are taken out of the hands of politicians. I fear that we are falling into a trap, in the Bill and elsewhere, in somehow believing the message that politicians are inclined to do things that are scurrilous and bad, for their personal advantage. However, the clause seemsto be something that everyone can sign up to enthusiastically. We need to have mechanisms to deliver what the clause promises, such as
“the quality of official statistics”
and
“their impartiality, accuracy and relevance”.
I have bored members of the Committee enough on this matter, and I promise them that I will not do so again, but I have said that the most important official series of statistics—the census and the inter-year census figures—in relation to the town that I represent is inaccurate. A politician’s input could help in that regard.
Let me explain. The hon. Member for Fareham referred to the fact that officials who prepare statistical series are working in Pimlico. He said that they were doing a good job, and I believe that, in most cases, they are, except in the matter on which I have bored the Committee. A politician’s input can bring to bear experiences beyond Pimlico, beyond Kent and beyond Newport from around the country that can hold the system accountable. As for the errors in the statistics of the Office for National Statistics, the Minister for Local Government reacted more positively to representations made on behalf of Slough than did ONS officials.

Bill Olner: Order. I remind the hon. Lady of the objectives under clause 7. Will she speak to them?

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed. I was wondering whether the Minister would, given his present duty to achieve the objectives under subsection (2)(a) of the clause in respect of impartiality, accuracy and relevance of statistics, including ONS mid-year estimates, be willing to meet me and Slough council to discuss such matters in relation to the town that I represent?

Julia Goldsworthy: I have a brief comment that follows on from what the hon. Lady said. The clause sets out laudable objectives, but I suppose that the key issue is how to deliver them. It relates to official statistics, so it has been widely welcomed. The statistics user forum said that it was
“pleased to note that ensuring access to official statistics is specifically mentioned as part of the good practice the board is intended to promote”.
Does the Minister have a view on whether having a code that is applicable to official statistics as well as national statistics would help to deliver that aim?

Michael Fallon: I am a supporter of the Bill, but I am in the words of the hon. Member for Slough not a particular enthusiast of the clause for a different reason. It is an example of incredible dreary drafting. It is late in the Bill to describe its objective. As I said on Tuesday, that should have happened at the beginning. The wording of the clause is rather humdrum. I do not know whether parliamentary counsel had an off day, but to set up such matters and say simply that the objective is to promote and safeguard quality and good practice, without setting a higher purpose, is a mistake.
There is stuff in the clause about accessibility and officialdom, but where in the clause is reference made to the higher purpose of the Bill? The Minister encouraged us this morning when he spoke of the Bill being part of the new settlement. Well, the new settlement does not have a poet. It is groundhog stuff. I should like to have seen in the clause some recognition of the wider public good that Ministers, to their credit, have said is the point of the new arrangements. It is not a matter simply of enhancing confidence in official statistics, checking quality as the clause describes, or checking up and spreading good practice. We need somewhere in the objectives of the board a reference to matters not simply being for the convenience of Ministers or for the benefit of Parliament, but “for the public good”.
I urge the Minister to consider those words, if it is possible to do so even at this late stage. I know that he asked the Committee to vote against my amendment to clause 1, a matter to which we cannot return, because that was a reference to other duties. I included in that definition of the purpose of the board the phrase “for the public good”.
The Minister clearly felt that the words were not appropriate on Tuesday. He certainly felt that they were not appropriate in that particular clause. However, if they are appropriate and he accepts the principle that this new arrangement is for the public good, those words ought to be incorporated into this clause. I would like to give him a further opportunity to say why they should not be.
 John Healey rose—

Bill Olner: In responding, I take it that the Minister will be writing to the right hon. Lady as to whether or not he is going to Slough and does not intend to put it on the face of the Bill?

John Healey: Mr. Olner, I am grateful for that guidance. I thought for a moment that I might have overlooked an amendment tabled to the Bill. This is an important clause. In many ways, it is the cornerstoneof the Bill because it establishes the board’s core purposes, something already discussed under previous amendments.
May I say to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that I will pass his comments, on the drafting being humdrum and dreary, to parliamentary counsel, but I shall make it clear that I do not agree with them. As Chairman of the Treasury Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman has—this is a serious point—studied this area and the provisions in the Bill probably more closely than many others. In view of the fact that he has returned to the question of higher purpose and brings particular authority to it, I will reflect further on his concern about the public good.
On the question raised by the hon. Member for Fareham, I hope that no one reads this legislation in a casual way. His puzzlement may come from the fact that national statistics are a sub-group of official statistics. That clarification may help in reading the cross-references that he—

Mark Hoban: In the interests of accuracy, with which much of this Bill is concerned, would it not be better for clause 7 to be precise about what the objectives relate to and how the clause interacts with subsequent clauses rather than contain some catch-all definition? I expected the Minister to say that national statistics were a sub-set of official statistics. However, I still think that we need to be much more precise about how clause 7 interacts with others in the Bill.

John Healey: In future proceedings, I will bear it in mind that the hon. Gentleman knows the answers to the questions that he asks me before he asks them. There is a distinction because national statistics are quite a significant set—approximately 1,300. Under these proposals, they are sufficiently important to have a code of practice that the board will draw up, one by which they will be assessed and approved.
In many ways, that is the answer to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. It is important to concentrate the board’s attention, and its assessment and auditing function, on the statistics that are most important. The national statistics—which were established under our national framework for statistics when we introduced them following reforms in 2000—give us an established list. They cover many of the most important statistics that we all use and depend on. I think that the hon. Lady accepts that proposing similar arrangements for official statistics is impractical given the wide scope that the Committee recognises would exist in the definition in clause 6.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is not heretical but honest and right to observe that simply putting the production or management of national statistics on that basis by taking Ministers out of the current set of responsibilities will not automatically restore trust in official statistics. It will not. In many ways, that will depend on two things. Its operation and the authority with which the board establishes itself will be important, but in the end, those who produce statistics build up authority and trust by being consistent, ensuring good quality and meeting user needs. That is why I have been at pains to stress that the quality of statistics, as much as their integrity and credibility, is an underlying aim of the proposed reforms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough has been tireless in drawing the particular concerns of Slough to the attention of officials and Ministers. She has pursued them with great determination and energy and argued the case sharply. If she would like to discuss them directly with me and the lead officials concerned and to bring experts from Slough to join her, I will by all means be happy to meet her, particularly if it means that we shall not have any Slough amendments to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Monitoring and reporting of official statistics

Julia Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendmentNo. 87, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Bill Olner: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in clause 8, page 4, line 33, at end insert—
‘(d) the funding and staffing resources allocated to the production of any official statistics,’.
No. 193, in clause 8, page 4, line 33, at end insert—
‘(d) the effective use of statistics to inform public policy,’.
No. 88, in clause 8, page 4, line 35, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
No. 99, in clause 8, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
‘(4) Where it considers it to be appropriate, the Board shall provide public comment on cases where it considers that official statistics have been incorrectly interpreted by ministers, departments or other civil servants.’.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Minister has just said that he is keen to ensure that the board does not take on too much in its role in official statistics, but clause 8(1) says:
“The Board is to monitor the production and publication of official statistics.”
That seems to me like a responsibility that could in theory be quite weighty.
Amendment No. 87 would give the clause a better sense of balance. The explanatory notes say that subsection (1)
“requires the board to monitor the production and publication of official statistics. This role draws on the duties under the current framework for national statistics”.
Yet subsection (2) says that the board
“may report any concerns it has about—
(a) the quality of any official statistics,
(b) good practice in relation to any official statistics, or
(c) the comprehensiveness of any official statistics”.
The board is required to monitor statistics but not to report problems.
Furthermore, under subsection (3), the board is not required to publish any report that it undertakes. Amendment No. 87 highlights and seeks to redress that imbalance in the clause and make its weak language a bit stronger. We have been discussing restoring public confidence, but there is no scope for trust in the current proposals. The amendment is fairly straightforward, and I see no need to dwell on it.
I shall touch on amendments Nos. 18 and 193. We note that there are special funding arrangements outside the spending review process. It could be helpful to put them into the Bill in order to have the option to monitor such resources. Amendment No. 193, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, deals with issues in a similar vein to those raised throughout the debate. With those remarks, I look forward to the Minister’s response and his justification for the clause’s weak phrasing, particularly in subsections (2) and (3).

Michael Fallon: Without necessarily rejecting any of arguments that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne put forward, I wish to speak specifically to my amendment No. 18.
I fear that I must again criticise the drafting of the Bill, thus ensuring that I shall not be invited to parliamentary counsels’ summer drinks party, if they have such a thing. The problem with the clause, particularly subsection (2), is that it is exclusive. It lists the only things about which the board may have concerns. If we are to confine its role to that of commentator, warner, monitor or a softer version of a regulator, it is a mistake then to limit the areas about which it may express concerns. With my amendment, I seek to add an important category, of which there may well be others: the funding and staffing resources available.
The hon. Lady might have slightly misunderstood my amendment. I am not concerned here by the funding and staffing available to national statistics, although we are concerned about that elsewhere. Indeed, I welcome the arrangements that have been made to push that outside the three-year comprehensive spending review. Obviously, what is important to the quality of statistics is the amount of funding and staffing resources devoted to them within each Department.
There are parallels to be drawn. The Treasury Committee, on which I have the honour of serving, recently took evidence from Mary Kagan, who is a senior official at the Treasury, as the Minister will know. One of her roles is to ensure that the finance function is properly discharged in other Departments, and she has been busily ensuring that we have more accountants and fully qualified financial officers in each Department. That role, for which the National Statistician had some responsibility in days gone by, is exactly the sort of role that I foresaw for the board: ensuring that that function is being properly exercised in each Department. I envisaged that if it had any concerns about budget cuts or a Department not giving priority to this area, it would be able to report them, but those are not matters about which it may be concerned under the clause.
It is a mistake to try to list and narrow down the areas about which the board may have concerns. We were told earlier that we should wait until the board has been set up and let it decide what it wants to decide, but with this clause the Minister invites Parliament to lay down the areas to which the board’s concern should be limited. That is a mistake.
The funding and staffing resources that are allocated to statistics in each Department is a primary area in which we want to ensure that the statistics board has a handle on what is happening. If it does not, it might not know why there is inconsistency or a problem in reporting a particular line of statistics. It needs to be able to go in and find out why. It may be that there are not enough statisticians in the Department or that the statistics division of the Department is not getting its fair share of the departmental budget allocation.
There is a strong case for rewriting subsection (2), or, if the Government are not prepared to do that, at least widening the categories about which the board may be concerned.

Alun Michael: I rise to speak to my amendmentNo. 193. I start from the position that the clause is helpful because it gives the board responsibility for monitoring and reporting on official statistics. Thereis no doubt that quality, good practice and comprehensiveness are key to the constant improvement of official statistics and their use. I draw attention to the words “and their use”.
I am pleased that there are two stages in the process: the board is expected first to comment to those who are responsible and may then publish its findings. That process will give bodies a chance to listen to what the board says and respond, and it therefore providesan opportunity for a dialogue about the quality of statistics.

Julia Goldsworthy: Although the board is required to monitor, there is no requirement for it to report on that monitoring, or to publish it. That is the concern that has been expressed.

Alun Michael: No. The point is that the board may publish its findings or any report, and it may do so after a dialogue with the organisation that produces the statistics. That may be productive and improve the statistics with an explanation of why they are being produced, and so on. In these days of greater transparency, one would expect the board generally to publish its findings, but not necessarily in advance of that dialogue. That is why the clause is constructive.
My amendment No. 193 addresses the issue of purpose—what the scrutiny is for—and answers that question: the board should report on concerns about whether statistics are being used properly “to inform public policy”. We can all think of examples of statistics being wrongly used, misunderstood or misinterpreted, not least by the media in search of a quick headline. The one killer factor seems to justify a headline, rather than asking what the statistics tell us about real life and what response is appropriate for public, non-governmental and private organisations to make to improve the situation and quality of life for people.
Misuse of statistics can be damaging, especially at local level. Those of us who have worked in inner-city areas will be used to one statistic being pulled out and used to cast aspersions on a whole area in a way that can be damaging to the local community. For those of us who believe passionately in an evidence-based approach to public policy, it is crucial to lift the quality of use of official statistics.
Misuse or lazy use of statistics often lets decision makers off the hook, because they say that the statistics were misinterpreted or not used properly, so they need not listen to the criticism. We need disciplined and hard-edged use of statistics to inform debate and to challenge decision makers at every level. It is also important for decision makers to use statistics as part of the process of priority setting and self-criticism. There are many good examples of that in central Government, local government and many other bodies, but it is not consistent across all organisations.
The purpose of my amendment is to make it clear that statistics are not just for academic purposes. It is all too possible to produce statistics that are interesting, but show what was happening 20 years ago, not what is happening now. As a local community worker, my interest has always been in the use of action research, so that the facts address the actions and decisions taken now. I hope that there will be that sense of urgency in the way the board pursues its activities. The amendment makes it clear that the statistics are not just for academic purposes or for looking back over long periods; they are for practical purposes and looking forward.
I therefore invite my hon. Friend to accept my amendment and to put in the Bill a power for the board to report any concerns about the use of statistics to the person responsible for them and, more widely, through a report in the public domain. I emphasise that “use” includes misuse or failure to use statistics in that context. I am happy to offer my hon. Friend an alternative—to tell us clearly and firmly that the board will indeed be able to act in that way because the words that I seek to put in the Bill are understood to be contained in the words in the clause about comprehensiveness and so on, and that, proportionate to the importance of the issue, he expects the board to do just that.
Again, I hope that what I have said will find favour with the Financial Secretary because my intention is to address the practicalities of how statistics are used at every level of the development of public policy and service delivery.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I wish to speak to amendment No. 193. Clearly, the relationship between public policy, policy making and statistics is important and we have rehearsed that argument well already. It is relevant not only to Departments and academics, as my right hon. Friend said, but to policy makers, including those at a local level. There are now a number of training programmes that seek to train local councillors and others about how to use statistics effectively. They aim to make them aware of the vast amount of information that is contained, particularly at small-area level, and how that can not only influence their policy making but be used to review the effectiveness of their policies and to plan ahead.
The Treasury Committee, on page 26 of its report, outlines various functions of the board. They include assuring itself that the statistical system takes account of the needs of all users. Presumably that means those involved in public policy making as well as other users. My question to the Minister is, how will that be assured? If it is recognised as a vital role for the board, should it not be included in clause 8, or clause 7(1) for that matter? I know that clause 32 deals with advisory committees and says that they should help the boards to address user needs, but as far as I can see that is not in the Bill. Perhaps it should be.

Mark Hoban: I want to address amendment No. 99, which builds partly on the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth when he talked about how statistics are used and the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on the exclusivity of the list of areas that the board might comment upon in clause 8(2). We want to ensure through the amendment that the board feels that it has the opportunity, the power and the right to speak out on those occasions where it feels that official statistics have been incorrectly interpreted by Ministers, Departments or other civil servants.
When I considered the scope of the responsibilities of the Statistics Commission, I found that that was not explicitly covered, but it was a role that it performed. I want to demonstrate why it is important that the amendment be made by referring to some work that the commission undertook. A noted academic researcher, Professor Tymms, who is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of Durham, looked at exam performance over time. He commented in a press article a couple of years ago that simply because the key stage 2 results had gone up, that did not mean that there had been an improvement in standards.
That comment was referred to the Statistics Commission, which went through a thorough process of consulting statistics users, and talking to academics and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It published a report in which it commented on how  statistics should be used and interpreted and the limitations that can be applied to statistics, as well as the caveats that should be disclosed alongside the publication of statistics so that they can be used properly. Paragraph 11 of that report states:
“We feel that public presentation of the key stage scores in statistical releases should include a clear statement about the uses to which the data may be put, and the limitations on it in respect of those uses. In that statement, it should be recognised that part of the rapid rise in test scores from 1995 to 2000 can be explained by factors other than a rise in standards.”
That criticism may not necessarily be directed at politicians, but it also said:
“Government departments have usually failed to mention any caveats about other possible reasons for rising test scores in their public comments. This may partly reflect a failure of communications on the part of the education research community.”
In a sense, there are examples already of how statistics, for various reasons, may be misinterpreted by Ministers, civil servants and people engaged in political debate. It is important that the board has the explicit opportunity to comment on the misuse of statistics. That provision is set out in amendment No. 99.

Stewart Hosie: I support amendment No. 99 as well. It is attractive and offers the possibility of a mechanism that might restrain some of the looser or, on certain occasions, deliberately inaccurate representations of statistics. I shall speak briefly and go back to the general expenditure revenue Scotland caveats, which I described in considerable detail on Second Reading. Just to remind the Committee, the statistics that describe the deficit
“should therefore be used with some caution.”
The income tax figure was not based on a known or fixed taxpayer population. The VAT
“results should be treated with caution”.
The method used to determine landfill tax gives an
“underestimate of the total attributable to Scotland”.
Corporation tax
“is exceptionally difficult to estimate for Scotland, due to both conceptual difficulties and a lack of data. Therefore, the estimate...should be treated with extra caution.”
One of the principal conclusions is that the expenditure is wrong, yet even with all those caveats on errors in expenditure and in income, certain Ministers and politicians, mainly in Scotland, will take those raw data, aggregate them or put them alongside an equally flawed gross domestic product calculation that excludes some £22 billion in value from the Scottish sector of the North sea, which would be the GDP figure, and calculate a debt for Scotland of more than £11 billion, saying that there is an annual deficit of 12 per cent. of GDP. We cannot find a country in the world—not even the Democratic Republic of the Congo—with an annual deficit of such extent. None the less, those figures are used.
Amendment No. 99 offers some restraint, even if only to allow the board to reiterate the caveats that are already published in the commentary that runs alongside the data. That alone would be helpful. I anticipate that there might be one danger with the amendment: it may draw civil servants into the political arena, where they ought not to be. However, it suggests that the board does the work and offers protection for the statisticians.
Senior people involved in the production of such material do comment publicly. Dr. Andrew Goudie, the Scottish Executive’s chief economic adviser, went public this week to confirm what the husband and wife economic team, the Cuthberts, identified in the current Scottish Executive investigation of GERS, which is the underestimate of English identifiable spend by some £4.4 billion and a corresponding overestimate of spending in Scotland—the share of non-identifiable spend—of some £400 million. Dr. Goudie was able to do that only because he was a witness before a Committee.
With the protection of the board standing in the way of the economists and statisticians, I repeat that if amendment No. 99 allowed only the caveats that are already published in commentaries sitting alongside statistics, it would be very welcome indeed.

John Healey: This has been a useful debate in respect of a number of points. I welcome the contributions from hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Fareham mentioned the Statistics Commission and cited some of its good work. In establishing the duty of the board under clause 8 to monitor the production and publication of official statistics and enabling it to report and publish its findings on the quality of good practice in relation to the comprehensiveness of official statistics, we drew on the similar responsibility currently placed on the non-statutory Statistics Commission.
The Bill is building on the work and approach established by the Statistics Commission by reflecting its functions and enhancing them by putting them into legislation, thereby entrenching the independence of those functions. The clause enhances them further by placing a statutory obligation on the board to monitor the production and publication of official statistics by the Government and their agencies.
That will provide the board with a very wide discretion to report to the person responsible for those statistics and to publish its concerns about any aspects of quality, good practice or comprehensiveness. However, we propose to leave it to the independent board to decide on the appropriate response when it has a concern, or a potential concern. We expect the board to bring its collective expertise and experience to bear on its judgments in each case. That will allow the board to select from a range of approaches within its discretion, depending on the relative importance, or the risk, attached to particular cases.
Ultimately, the Bill will allow some scope for informality in how the board might deal with a concern, or a potential concern. For example, in the case of a media report that the board believes is worthy of further exploratory inquiry or questioning, it is sensible to allow it the discretion to do that without requiring it necessarily to publish that fact because it constitutes a concern, which is what amendmentsNos. 87 and 88 would require it to do.
I say to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that the framing of the measure is not weak, but sensible. What she proposes is disproportionate; it would place an undue burden on the board to report and publish in all manner of situations, which may not be sensible or appropriate. We would not want the board to have to publish a report every time it made an inquiry to the head of a profession in a Department on an issue of concern, or potential concern, that may have been raised with it. If that concern was properly and fully settled by the head of a profession in a Department, we would want the board to have the discretion to complete its function in response to such a situation and not be required to publish a report.
Nevertheless, the board can report; it can publish its concerns whenever it thinks that necessary. It can ensure that transparency is a key discipline and feature of the new system as a form of gaining credibility and authority, but it has the discretion under the clause to use appropriately and according to its own judgment whatever it feels is important. Surely that must be the right response, given that it is an independent board; it is well placed to judge for itself how best to fulfil its objectives. Parliament will also play an important role in commenting and questioning the board if it feels that the board is not fulfilling its obligations. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne will not press her amendment.
Amendment No. 18 was tabled by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I hope he accepts from what I have already said that the drafting of clause 8 reflects the objectives that the Committee has agreed should stand part of the Bill under clause 7. Most importantly, it is not excluding, it is not limiting and it is very wide in scope. The broad range of powers that the board already has will enable it to report on funding and resources when they are relevant to the issues of comprehensiveness and good practice or the quality of statistics.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham were principally and refreshingly concerned about user needs. I hope to assure them. Their amendment seeks to permit the board to report on concerns about the effective use of statistics to inform public policy, but that is already permitted—indeed, it is expected of the board—as an aspect of good practice.
If the board considers that the statistical underpinning for a policy is inadequate, it could criticise the quality of its statistical base, including its coherence, relevance and comprehensiveness. If it considers that improper use has been made of statistics to support a particular policy, it may criticise the quality or relevance of the statistics, or any dubious practice. Ultimately, however, responsibility for the formulation of the policy itself lies with Ministers.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend said that the formulation of policy would lie with Ministers. At local level, of course, it would lie with the bodies responsible. Presumably, that would be open to comment in the same way, would it not?

John Healey: The board would be empowered and expected to report, and to publish its views, on anything connected with official statistics, as defined in the Bill.
I hope to reassure the hon. Members for Fareham and for Dundee, East. On amendment No. 99, the board is already empowered under clause 8. In other words, if the board judges that a comment by a Minister, a Department or a civil servant is not in keeping with good practice in relation to official statistics, it can report and publish its findings in that respect.
I hope that I have dealt with the concerns that lay behind the amendments. I hope that amendmentNo. 87 will not be pressed to a Division. I hope that the sponsors of the other amendments will consider not pressing them when we reach them.

Julia Goldsworthy: I have listened carefully to the Financial Secretary’s response, and I am partly reassured. However, although he made much of the board’s independence, it is important in the interests of public confidence in national statistics that that is accompanied by openness and certainty. The board may have a responsibility to monitor official statistics, but there must surely be a commensurate responsibility to report.
Following on from the comments of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, informal negotiations might indeed take place, but the point at which the report must be published is not specified. If the clause is amended as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I suggest, the report will be a matter of public record, so that there will be no shadow of doubt about the board’s independence. On that basis, I should like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 88, in clause 8, page 4,line 35, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.—[Julia Goldsworthy.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Gauke: I have a quick question for the Financial Secretary. Under subsection (3), the board has the power to
“publish its findings or any report under this section.”
I should be grateful to him for confirmation that that subsection is not restricted to the provisions of subsection (2), which refers to the statistical concerns that the board may report.
No doubt, the vast majority of interest will be in what the board has to say about its concerns, but one could see the board producing a regular series of statistics about, for example, the comprehensiveness of waiting list statistics. It may not be concerned at a specific time, but it may wish to produce a series of reports. As I read subsection (3), it is not restrictive, but I should be grateful to the Financial Secretary for confirmation that the board can publish its findings or a report on any matter that relates to the production or publication of professional statistics, and not just when it has concerns.

John Healey: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The provision in subsection (3) is not confined to the concerns laid out in subsection (2). When the board monitors the production and publication of official statistics, it will be able to publish its findings on aspects that range wider than simply the concerns set out in subsection (2).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Code of Practice for National Statistics

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in clause 10, page 5, line 7, leave out ‘National’ and insert ‘official’.

Bill Olner: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in clause 10, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) All those who produce or release official statistics must—
(a) comply with the Code under the provisions of subsection (1), consulting the Board on matters of interpretation where appropriate; and
(b) report to the Board any breaches of the Code.’.
No. 19, in clause 10, page 5, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Board, government departments, the Scottish Administration, Welsh Ministerial authorities, Northern Ireland departments and any other person acting on behalf of the Crown in the production or publication of official statistics shall—
(a) be bound by the Code of Practice for National Statistics;
(b) consult the Board on any matter of interpretation of the Code that may be necessary; and
(c) report to the Board any breach of the Code.’.
No. 93, in clause 10, page 5, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) The Board shall lay before Parliament a report setting out any breach reported to it under subsection (1A) as soon as possible after the breach has occurred.’.

Theresa Villiers: Amendment No. 140 would turn the code of practice for national statistics into a code of practice that covered all official statistics. It is supplemented and supported by amendment No. 91, which imposes on those who produce official statistics a legal obligation to obey the code. Together, the amendments would abolish the two-tier system that distinguishes between national statistics and other official statistics and ensure that the full rigour of the reforms applies across all official statistics, whether they are produced by the ONS or by Departments.
Before turning to the substantive issues that surround amendments Nos. 91 and 140, to broaden the scope of the code in the way that I have described, I should like to take some time to deal with the technical issues that arise from this group of amendments. It is necessary to go through them to understand the restructuring of the Bill that amendments Nos. 91 and 140, and some later consequential amendments, involve.
The Opposition consider it to be a matter of concern that the Bill does not require anybody to comply with the code of practice. Amendment No. 91 would impose such an obligation. We feel that imposing a legal obligation would give real statutory force to the code and the new regime for statistics and strengthen the ability of the board to hold the producers of official statistics to account. It then must be decided on whom the obligation should be imposed.
The Bill envisages that the code of practice will apply to sets of numbers. In fact, the focus should be on the institutions that produce the statistics; there should be a code of ethics and good practice for producers. That point is strongly made by the Statistics Commission, which has emphasised the importance of the code’s applying to the activities of Government bodies, rather than providing a means of kite-marking individual sets of numbers. The code of practice should set out ethical guidelines for the way in which Departments operate in relation to statistical matters. The board should monitor the behaviour of the relevant authorities to determine whether they have complied with the code across the board, rather than focusing on certain sets of statistics.
Our amendments would give the board the supervisory and regulatory powers that, as the Financial Secretary acknowledged this morning, it lacks under the Bill. The Committee will note that paragraph (a) of amendment No. 91 would require the relevant authorities to consult the board on matters of the code’s interpretation. That would address a problem with the existing non-statutory code, which has been interpreted differently by the Statistics Commission and Departments. In its 2005-06 annual report, the commission said:
“Only a few parts of the present Code are of a kind that allow an independent judgment to be made about compliance. Much of the Code is non-prescriptive and requires no specific evidence.”
That ambiguity has led to differences of view about what the code means. The Treasury Committee heard from Mike Hughes, a director of the ONS, who commented on similar concerns expressed by David Rhind. Mr. Hughes said:
“I have great sympathy with David Rhind’s remarks about the code at the moment, because the code is an articulation of good practice rather than saying, ‘You should be doing this or that,’ so it is left to individual departments to decide how they choose to interpret it.”
The most important way to remedy that problem is, of course, to eliminate ambiguity, but the Opposition also feel that paragraph (a) of amendment No. 140, with its reference to the interpretation of the code, would be a visible signal of the importance of the board as guardian of the code and the institution with real authority to interpret what it means. That visible signal of the board’s authority would also be strengthened by an obligation to report breaches of the code to the board, and that is contained in paragraph (b) of amendment No. 140.
Turning to the last technical point before addressing the substantive question of scope, amendment No. 93 would require the board to report breaches of the code to Parliament. That is more of a probing amendment than the others. Throughout the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have emphasisedthe importance of parliamentary involvement in scrutinising the new structures. I am sure that the board will, in any event, refer to breaches in the regular reports that it is anticipated that it will submit to Parliament. However, it is important to have the opportunity to assess how the reporting process would work. We would have to interpret the reporting obligation on the board in a proportionate way, so that it would not necessarily have to write to Parliament every week, but this amendment emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the board’s operation.
I shall turn to the main point at issue. We tabled our amendments because we believe that the board’s role should be consistent across statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics and Departments. The Bill gives the new board the obligation to oversee statistics that fall outside the scope of National Statistics, but it does not give sufficient power and authority for the board to live up to that responsibility for oversight. Ministers will retain the power to decide which statistics from their Departments should go forward for consideration in terms of becoming national statistics and which should not, leaving important Government figures out of the new framework. Effectively, the proposals would give Ministers the power to decide to what extent the legislation should apply to them.
There is no good reason why departmental figures, many of which are vital in assessing the performance of our public services, should be treated to a lesser regime. Much of the controversy about statistics over the past few years has focused on departmental practices and statistics, not on ONS ones. As the Royal Statistical Society has pointed out, there is nothing inherent in the social statistics that come from Departments that justifies a differential treatment by the new structures to be set up by the board. On the contrary, such statistics are a highly important part of political debate today.
Our position draws support from a range of sources. The Greater London authority data management and analysis group, for example, has stated:
“We reject the proposition that statistics which derive from management of public services are inherently different and cannot meet the requirements of the National Statistics Code of Practice. If statistics merit release for public use, especially if they are being used as performance indicators, then they merit inclusion as National Statistics.”
The Audit Commission has also expressed concern, stating:
“There is the risk of creating a two-tier system of statistics, which will be confusing to the general public and other stakeholders. Such a scenario would only seek to generate low public trust in statistics and reinforce the perception of political interference in the production and publication of statistics.”
Dr. Barry Leventhal, chairman of the Market Research Society’s census and geodemographics group agreed that all
“unnecessary distinctions should be removed between national statistics and other official statistics—such distinctions are unsatisfactory and confusing to users.”
Professor Denise Lievesley, chief executive of the health and social care information centre has stated:
“It is the IC’s belief that the code should apply to all official statistics.”
Sue Duncan, the Government’s own chief social researcher, has stated:
“It is important to recognise that much of the statistical system falls outside National Statistics and is therefore not subject to the same quality control, which has the potential to undermine confidence of the public (who won’t make the distinction between National and other statistics produced by departments).”
To put that remark in context, I should make it plain that she did not call for a total abandonment of the distinction between national and other official statistics.
Debrah Harding of the Market Research Society has said:
“The agreed definition of national statistics must be consistently and appropriately applied by government, the ONS, and the research and statistics community as a whole. Fundamentally the distinction must incorporate all official statistics including crucial policy areas such as health, education and crime which are currently produced outside of the ONS.”
Many have expressed concern about the role of Ministers in nominating statistics for the board’s consideration to become part of the National Statistics system. The British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association has stated:
“The implication is that there will be a list of statistical series that will be within scope and this will be decided bottom up by Ministers on a case by case basis. In effect Ministers are being given the job of deciding whether the legislation should apply to them. In our view, the Board should have responsibility for safeguarding the public interest.”
 Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the First Division Association of senior civil servants, has said:
“The FDA believes that allowing Ministers alone to decide which statistics fall within the remit of National Statistics would undermine attempts to build a clear identity for independent statistics. It would either lead to confusion and add to lack of public confidence in the statistics published or it would create a two tier regime for government statistics which is undesirable and could potentially create difficulties for the government of the day.”
Professor Tim Holt has pointed out:
“The proposal that Ministers should decide what statistics are to be covered by the arrangements is unacceptable. We have seen the effect of this fragmentation of decision making to individual Ministers under the current arrangements and it is unsatisfactory. A legal framework will not command public confidence if Ministers can decide whether or not it applies to them and activities within their departments.”
The Opposition believe that Ministers are unlikely to be keen to nominate their departmental statistics to go into a new scrutiny system. According to Dr. Fellegi, the chief statistician of Canada, allowing Ministers to decide what should or should not be designated a national statistic
“would undermine the whole idea of statistical independence...surely the likelihood that, should they do so, their statistical activity would be subject to audits is not a very strong incentive to opt in.”
If this aspect of the proposal is not changed, Dr. Fellegi feels that the whole exercise amounts to no more than “tinkering”and would fail to solve the problem of public trust in statistics. The academic and statistician, Lord Moser, whose views we have heard a number of times in Committee, told the Treasury Committee that that aspect of the Government’s proposals was a basic flaw.
The RSS has stated that the extension of National Statistics over the past six years has been patchy. Many people, including the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, have expressed concerns about the number of statistics relating to areas such as crime, education, health, and social security that are outside the scope of National Statistics. The Statistics Commission has stated
“We believe it is essential for the new arrangements to relate to all official statistics, not just those which are currently the responsibility of ONS or labelled ‘National Statistics’. The arguments here are largely obvious: many of the most politically sensitive and controversial statistics are produced by the major policy departments of government and based on administrative data crime, education, health and social security records not statistical surveys. The new arrangements must recognise this or risk public confidence in such statistics being reduced rather than enhanced”.

Alun Michael: I am following the hon. Lady’s argument with interest. Objectivity and trust in statistics are, of course, a good thing. However, she seems to imply that statistics are an instrument used by Ministers, who are not interested in the integrity of them. That is quite wrong, and I am puzzled by why she should take such an approach. For example, there were no figures on the length of time it took to get young offenders before a court, until this Government came in and designed ways of measuring it—we did so because we had a commitment to halve that time. Statistics were actually being driven by ministerial interest in delivering a promise to the public. Will she acknowledge that?

Theresa Villiers: I acknowledge, of course, that Ministers can do valuable work in relation to statistics, but the whole point of the Bill is to restrict political interference in relation to statistics and to take politicians out of the presentation and production of statistics. What I have been saying is consistent with the goals of the Bill.

Alun Michael: With respect, the hon. Lady is missing my point entirely. Those preparing statistics had not considered measuring or recording that sort of information until it was needed to deliver a better service to the public. That service was delivered, but it was done because Ministers set a priority to measure something that needed measuring.

Theresa Villiers: And no doubt that would continue under what I am proposing. All I am proposing is that Ministers should not have the right to veto their statistics from going into the regulatory system that we are trying to set up. The Home Office disclosed to the Treasury Committee that only 12 per cent. of its statistical outputs were national statistics. I would be interested to hear whether the Financial Secretary is prepared to disclose the same figures for other Departments, because I am sure that that would be of great interest to the Committee. I have tried, so far without success, to elicit an answer to that question from different Departments.
The Financial Secretary stated on Second Reading that he does not believe that it would make sense to give the same attention or submit the same processes to less significant statistics, such as UK TV export figures, as to key economic indicators such as jobless totals. Surely, if a statistic is worth producing, it is worth applying to it the principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality that we expect to be set out in the new statutory code. It is difficult to see the value of statistics produced without the application of those ethical principles. One of the difficulties of a two-tier system is that it is not always possible to predict with certainty which statistics will be significant and which will not, because certain statistics might suddenly acquire an unexpectedly high political significance.
To illustrate that statistics that fall outside the scope of National Statistics are not significant enough to merit the application of the code of practice, the Minister referred to the egg bulletin. However, data relating to eggs can certainly be significant—they were of career-killing importance for Edwina Currie back in the 1980s. Within a day or so of the Minister mentioning that issue on the day of the Queen’s Speech, figures on egg imports issued by the Food Standards Agency hit the headlines, when it was disclosed that about one box out of every 30 imported into the UK tested positive for salmonella.
On Second Reading, some other specific examples were discussed of statistics that fall outside the scope of the National Statistics system. We discussed the fact that quarterly waiting lists are designated as national statistics, but monthly waiting lists are not. However, as the list set out in the Treasury Committee report shows, there are many other sensitive and significant figures that are outside the scope of National Statistics. To take just a few examples, they include statistics on race and the criminal justice system, women and the criminal justice system, local sentencing patterns in magistrates courts, the end-of-the-month prison population count, quarterly figures on total time spent in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, discharge or transfer and waiting for emergency admission, quarterly waiting times for suspected cancer patients, quarterly figures for cancelled operations, annual figures on bed availability and occupancy, benefit expenditure tables, quarterly figures for council house sales in England, collection figures for council tax and non-domestic rates in England, creative industry economic estimates, business competitiveness indicators, the development of oil and gas resources in the UK, energy and its impact on the environment and society, survival rates for businesses still registered for VAT after one and three years, annual progress reports on the UK fuel poverty strategy, women’s attitudes to combining paid work and family life, the quarterly report of NHS stop smoking services in England, armed forces medical discharges, households below average income in Northern Ireland, alcohol-related health and mortality, cancer audits and cancer waiting times in Scotland, absenteeism from primary schools in Wales, the admission of patients to health facilities including detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983, cancer survival, cervical screening, exclusions from schools—

Bill Olner: Order. The hon. Lady has an exhaustive list, which is getting tiring. I would have thought that her point had been made.

Theresa Villiers: I appreciate the patience of the Committee. I was going to refer to only two more statistics, namely those on NHS beds and NHS dentists. All those statistics would fall outwith the full rigour of the proposed reform, since none are designated as national statistics. We think that many of them cover issues of significance and concern to people and policy makers across the country, and we believe that they are important enough to be subject to the code of practice on impartiality, objectivity and integrity. That is why we appeal to the Government to support our amendments.

Michael Fallon: I want briefly to discuss amendmentNo. 19. The reason why I need to speak only brieflyis that it is, of course, very similar to amendmentNo. 91—my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet came up with the amendment by a process of competitive drafting, which I commend to the Minister and his officials. The problem is fairly simple and my hon. Friend has alluded to it already. We have a code, but it is not enforceable. That is a difficulty with the existing code and, given that we are putting it on a statutory basis, it will be a missed opportunity if we continue to pursue the concept of a code of practice, but do not say that anybody has to be bound by it.
It is also important for there to be a duty to consult on the interpretation of the code so that potential or confirmed breaches can be identified. As the code stands, that will be left to the good offices of the board, which will be left to discover breaches for itself unless there is a whistleblower at work. That duty would be useful, but I have no preference for either amendment No. 19 or amendment No. 91. Perhaps the drafting of the latter is a little more elegant than my amendment No. 19, but that is the benefit of competitive drafting. Either way, I hope that the Minister will accept the point that, if there is to be a code, it should be enforceable.

Julia Goldsworthy: We share the concerns about the two-tier statistics system that the Bill will entrench and the fact that the code will not be binding. We do not know what resources, if any, will be available to the board if it is not convinced that the code has been complied with.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about important statistics that are not currently national statistics, the problem is that we already have a two-tier system. For information such as that on dentists that is not collected locally, will there need to be a brand new national statistic? What mechanism does the Financial Secretary envisage for converting an official statistic that is not collected in a uniform way nationally into a national statistic if a Minister believes that it should be given that importance?

Alun Michael: I can assure you, Mr. Olner, that I shall be brief and not read extracts from the London telephone directory. I hope that I shall again have the sympathy and encouragement of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
Amendment No. 195 would insert a requirement stating:
“In preparing the Code the Board shall have regard to the usefulness of National Statistics at a local level and the importance of coterminosity of raw data.”
Both parts of the amendment are important. The usefulness of national statistics is manifest, and in my intervention on the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet I made the point that those who use statistics to inform public policy and the public benefit sometimes need to point out that statistics collected for mere academic purposes do not necessarily answer the questions that need to be answered. It is important that the code should address that.
The coterminosity of raw data is different from all the other considerations on how data are collated, because it is absolutely basic. If raw data are consistently collected at the most local level possible they can then be aggregated, like blocks of Lego, for any combination of areas as required by public bodies, non-governmental organisations or others seeking to develop policy and deliver services. They can be aggregated at ward, local authority, health authority or police area level. I could give more examples, but the point is clear. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will explicitly support the essential nature of collecting raw data at the most local level possible and state it as his expectation. I would prefer it to be stated in the Bill, because it is such a basic point, but I would at least like an assurance.
Amendment No. 196 suggests that
“representatives with experience of using statistics to identify public need or improve service delivery, including representatives from local government and non-governmental organisations”
should be included. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he almost proposed such an amendment when he said that that would be an essential way of proceeding in his response to me in an earlier debate. Again, it is essential that there should be a reminder in the Bill, because it is easy to forget about the local level, especially for those in academic institutions who consider things at the broader level. I hope that my hon. Friend will either be positive in his response or accept my amendments. Either way, our expectations for the future will be explicit.

David Gauke: I shall briefly speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends, and draw to the Committee’s attention two pieces of evidence that were given to the Treasury Sub-Committee on the very point that we are discussing.
The first point, from Lord Moser, was that by having a code that applies to national statistics but not to official statistics, the Bill will have a greater impact on the ONS part of the current statistics arrangements, which is in least need of reform. Secondly, the chief statistician of Canada, whose evidence was referred to in our earlier sitting today, argued that the public are unlikely to distinguish between statistics that originate from the ONS and those from other Departments. The same point can be made with regard to national statistics and official statistics. The distinction is not likely to be appreciated and understood by the public at large, for entirely understandable reasons.
It was for those reasons that the Treasury Sub-Committee expressed concerns in its report about the proposed approach. The concerns that my hon. Friends have raised are therefore somewhat widespread, particularly since the decisions as to what will be national statistics and what will be official statistics will be made by Ministers, not by the independent statistics board.

John Healey: The clause places a statutory duty on the board to prepare, adopt and publish a code of practice for national statistics. That is an idea that was widely supported during our public consultation, especially by many of the professional groups. The code of practice is the tool that the board will use to undertake its assessment of candidate national statistics, as set out in clauses 12 to 15.
However, we also expect the code to be one of the board’s main vehicles to promulgate the standards and definitions that it is required under clause 9 to produce and promote across all official statistics. I stress the importance of that point, which has perhaps not been clear before, and about which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has been worried. It is important to note that, although the code’s formal status is as a statement of practice against which national statistics or candidate national statistics will be assessed, we expect the board to promote it as a code of good practice across all official statistics.
Statistics that are produced and published by the Government clearly differ in importance. Few would seriously contest the importance of unemployment statistics for a wide variety of purposes and users. Others might regard the statistics on the number of television licences that a Department holds, for instance, as less important. Few would seriously argue that those data—in other words, official statistical data—should be treated in the same way or with the same status as the jobless figures, which are national statistics.
An active assessment programme will therefore be necessary. Such a programme will necessarily bring with it certain resource implications for national statistics, in funding the process, in placing a compliance burden on those assessed and in occupying the concern and attention of the statistics board. Surely it is right that we apply that assessment to the central set of national statistics—the key statistics that the Government, business and the public rely on for an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK. There are about 1,300 national statistics. For the Committee’s benefit, I do not propose to read out the entire list.

Theresa Villiers: I do not propose to repeat that list. Are statistics in Wales on, for example, exclusions from schools or cervical screening not important enough to be treated with integrity and impartiality?

John Healey: I think that the hon. Lady did not hear what I said. The standards of integrity and impartiality of production and release that are likely to be captured in the code of practice that the statistics board draws up to assess national statistics against will be the same standards that we expect the board to promote for the production and handling of all official statistics. The important thing, which I believe the hon. Lady will have heard me say before, is that we are setting out in the Bill a framework that can evolve in the light of experience. We are starting with the central list of about 1,300 established national statistics, but the definition and list of national statistics clearly can and will evolve in the future.

David Gauke: I take the Financial Secretary’s point that the statistics board will have a power to promote the code with regard to official statistics. What powers will the statistics board have to enforce the code with regard to official statistics?

John Healey: My point is precisely that the main attention, the important resources and the important expertise of the statistics board in its assessment, audit and compliance function should be directed principally at the assessment and approval—the auditing, if one likes—of the national statistics that form our central set of statistics. Let me reassure hon. Members that the framework is likely to evolve. It seems to me that under the process there will be a strong incentive for Ministers to look actively at submitting additional departmental statistics for approval as national statistics where they are central to the policy functions or the delivery of the programmes for which that Department and those Ministers are responsible. I would expect the board, as part of its statutory duty under the Bill, to comment on the comprehensiveness and coverage of official statistics and to comment also on any official statistics that it believes should be national statistics.
Amendment No. 140 would change the title of the code of practice from “National” to “official”. A consequence of what I hope I have been able clearly to set out before the Committee today is that that change in itself would make no material impact on the standards of good statistical practice that we expect. We expect the code to be a model of good practice for official statistics, and we expect the board to promote it as such. The board is to monitor the production and publication of official statistics and comment on concerns about the quality and good practice in relation to all official statistics.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 19, supported by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, would place a requirement on all Departments that produce official statistics to be bound by the code and report any breach of the code to the board. I do not believe that the reporting of breaches is a matter that should be set out in legislation. The board, working, as it becomes established, with all the interest groups and stakeholders, will develop mechanisms for engaging in respect of the interpretation and application of the code and reporting breaches to it. Those may well be set out in the code itself. For example, under clause 9 the board can provide advice and guidance to persons responsible for official statistics in this context.
Amendment No. 93 would require the board to lay before Parliament a report on any breach that it has investigated. Under the Bill, the board is empoweredto lay any such report or assessment of sufficient importance before this House or the devolved Administrations, or to report it publicly. As with our discussions on clause 8 and the reporting of concerns, it is fundamentally better to leave it to the independent board’s judgment to respond proportionately than to impose obligations on it.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Members who tabled the amendments that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will not press the lead one and that other amendments will not be moved.

Theresa Villiers: I shall not press the amendment owing to the lateness of the hour and because we hope to return to this important issue on Report. We welcome the Financial Secretary’s acceptance of the fact that the code will apply across Departments, but he failed to address the problem of enforcement.

John Healey: The code is relevant not just across Departments, but to all official statistics. Furthermore, the board’s assessment and approval functions relating to national statistics must be conducted according to that code.

Theresa Villiers: I appreciate that clarification. As I said, I shall not press the amendment, but hope to return to it on Report.
The Financial Secretary is concerned about the problems that could arise from vesting the board with enforcement powers over Departments that breach the code and stated that some statistics are less significant than others and should not be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. He might be concerned about the burden that would be placed on statisticians, but surely we can trust the board to take a proportionate approach to the statistics and their significance. After all, under clause 26 it is obliged to minimise the burdens that it imposes on those affected by its activities. I feel that the Financial Secretary has not produced a reason why certain statistics should be subjected to a lesser regime, but as I said I welcome his acceptance of the code’s impact across Departments.

John Healey: Let us compare my two examples of statistics held by particular Departments—on unemployment and television licences. Would the hon. Lady not accept that they should be treated differently?

Theresa Villiers: They should both be treated with impartiality and honesty, and should be accurate. Good practice should apply to both.
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, however, for the clarification that he has given and look forward to further discussion of the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 10, page 5, line 8, at end insert
‘taking account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice and the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics and other international codes or agreements which the Board considers to be appropriate.’.

Bill Olner: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 195, in clause 10, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
‘(2A) In preparing the Code the Board shall have regard to the usefulness of National Statistics at a local level and the importance of coterminosity of raw data.’.
No. 196, in clause 10, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
‘(ca) representatives with experience of using statistics to identify public need or improve service delivery, including representatives from local government and non-government organisations, and’.
No. 96, in clause 17, page 8, line 12, at end insert—
‘(6) The Board shall publish the Code within 12 months of being established.’.

Theresa Villiers: I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to hear that I shall be brief.
Amendment No. 141 is self-explanatory. In drafting the code, the board should have regard to the European statistics code of practice, the United Nations fundamental principles of official statistics and other international agreements. Both those documents contain a number of very useful principles that could inform the drafting of the board’s code. They are consistent with the line taken by both sides of the House on the importance of objectivity and of focusing on user needs—a matter raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. They also focus on the importance of identifying errors in published statistics and correcting them as early as possible; they emphasise objectivity, transparency and user consultation. Importantly, they also emphasise equal access to statistical releases and ensuring that there are clearly defined rules to govern pre-release, when that is allowed. In drafting the final code, the board would do well to consider the clear approach to release practices, particularly shown in the European code.
To conclude, the UN fundamental principlesof official statistics focus on the professional consideration, scientific principles and professional ethics on the methods of procedures for collection, processing, storage and presentation of statistical data. They provide a useful source of information and international best practice on which the board would do well to rely. That is why I tabled the amendment.
Amendment No. 96 is self-explanatory. It requires the board to publish the code within 12 months of its being established. We all agree that the Bill is important; it would make sense to get the code up and running as soon as possible. I am grateful to the Committee for its patience.

John Healey: This is a useful and, I hope, probing amendment from the hon. Lady. We expect the board to draw on the relevant guidance and principles contained in various documents such as the code of practice for national statistics, the European statistics code of practice and the United Nations fundamental principles of official statistics. I do not want to get into another long list. However, we would also expect the board to consider the commendable work of the Statistics Commission, which recently published its own proposals on a revised code of practice. However, it is unnecessary and potentially unhelpful to place statutory obligations on the board to do so. I hope that my clarifications have convinced the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tabled amendments Nos. 195 and 196. I fully expect the board to take account of the considerations that he sets out in amendment No. 195. I understand, as he does, the importance of good local-level data—for use locally, but also as a building block for understanding what may be going on at the regional and national levels.
As we discussed, specifying in the Bill particular statistical uses or considerations of which the board must take account in drawing up the code would be unnecessarily inflexible. I expect the board to consult those with the experience and user interest set out in amendment No. 196, but it is not necessary to stipulate that in the Bill. My right hon. Friend welcomed my earlier clarification that under clause 32, the board would have the power to establish advisory committees. Those would allow it to consult individuals with the expertise on which my right hon. Friend is concerned to see it draw.
Given my comments, I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit not to press the amendment to a Division.

Theresa Villiers: I do not wish to press amendmentNo. 141. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Four o'clock till Tuesday 23 January at half-past Ten o'clock.